TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (12) TMI 1395
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....onal fixation and re-computation of their retiral dues (severance package). 3. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties at length. 4. In the above appeals, following common question of law is raised: Whether wage revision implemented with effect from 1.4.2006 to employees of Mineral Exploration Corporation Limited, who were superannuated/voluntarily retired from service on or after 1.4.2003, is also applicable to those employees of the Corporation who were superannuated/voluntarily retired before said date (1.4.2003), particularly, when no benefit whatsoever is paid to any employee prior to the cut-off date, i.e., 1.4.2003. In other words, whether fixing cut-off date 1.4.2003 by the Corporation in the matter is arbitrary or irrational. 5. Briefly stated the present Appellant is a public sector undertaking registered under the Companies Act, 1956, wholly owned by the Government of India. It was established for various exploration activities of mineral resources throughout the country. The Corporation incurred losses since 1992 onwards till 2009. As such, due to the stringent financial condition of the Corporation, it could not make any provision for capital investment and i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....who opted for voluntary retirement before 1.4.2003 (but subsequent to 1997). They claimed wage revision by making representations to the Appellant-Corporation, and filed various writ petitions. Said writ petitions were transferred to the Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai, which were registered as Transferred Applications, as mentioned in the first paragraph of this judgment. The Tribunal divided the applications into two categories-first, petitions of those employees who were superannuated or voluntarily retired prior to 1.4.2003 and second, petitions of those employees who retired on 1.4.2003 or afterwards but prior to the date of implementation (1.4.2006). By common judgment dated 4.8.2010, the Tribunal held that the employees who retired on or after 1.4.2003 shall be entitled to the actual benefits of the wage revision, and the employees who retired on or before 1.4.2003 would be given similar treatment by revision in notional pay (with actual pensionary benefits). The operative portion of the Tribunal's order reads as under: In the conspectus of facts and circumstances of the case, we have no doubt in holding that the 30 applicants are entitled to actual benefits of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d from 1.4.2006. It is, therefore, argued on behalf of the Appellant that the contesting Respondent who voluntarily retired prior to 1.4.2003 were not covered for the purposes of benefit of the wage revision. 9. Before further discussion, we would like to reproduce letter dated 8.8.2006 (Annexure P-12), issued by the Government of India to the Appellant, to understand as to what were the conditions for allowing wage revision. The letter is reproduced as under: GOVERNMENT OF INDIA Ministry of Mines No. 40(1)/2004-M.I. (Vol. III) New Delhi, the 8.8.2006 To The Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Mineral Exploration Corporation Ltd., High Land Drive Road, Nagpur. Sub.: Financial Restructuring of Mineral Exploration Corporation Limited (MECL) Sir, I am directed to convey the approval of the Government to the financial restructuring and wage revision proposal of MECL as detailed below: A. Financial Restructuring (i) Waiver of interest of Rs. 51.56 crores and penal interest of Rs. 7.28 crores as on 31.03.2005. Further no interest would be levied beyond the cut-off date of 31.03.2005. (ii) Conversion of outstanding Government loan of Rs. 30.80 crores into equity effec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Office Order dated 25.8.2006 (Annexure P-14). 11. On behalf of the contesting Respondents it is contended that the Respondents are not claiming the actual benefits but only notional wage revision for the period between 1.1.1997 till their date of superannuation/voluntary retirement (prior to 1.4.2003) as such the Tribunal and the High Court have committed no error of law in allowing the same. 12. Mr. Gourab Banerji, learned senior counsel for the Appellant, responded to the above contention stating that if such notional wage revision is permitted prior to 1.4.2003, the actual difference in computation of pension would practically take back the Appellant-Corporation to the position where it was continuously running in to huge losses. It is vehemently argued that if the wage revision Office Order is interpreted to include all the employees who were superannuated/voluntarily retired between 1.4.1997 to 1.4.2003, it would frustrate the measures taken, including the Voluntary Retirement Scheme, to improve the condition of public sector undertaking. 13. We have considered rival submissions of the parties. It is relevant to discuss here what is the law laid down by this Court in such m....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....reiterated its earlier stand and issued a caution that till a decision was taken to revive the undertakings, no revision in pay scale should be allowed. We, therefore, do not find any infirmity, legal or constitutional in the two office memorandums which have been challenged in the writ petitions. 14. In Officers and Supervisors of I.D.P.L. v. Chairman and M.D., I.D.P.L. and Ors. (2003) 6 SCC 490 (para 11), this Court has held as under: In our view, the economic capability of the employer also plays a crucial part in it, as also its capacity to expand business or earn more profits. The contention of Mr. Sanghi, if accepted, that granting higher remuneration and emoluments and revision of pay to workers in other governmental undertakings and, therefore, the Petitioners are also entitled to the grant of pay revision may, in our opinion, only lead to undesirable results. Enough material was placed on record before us by the Respondents which clearly shows that the first Respondent had been suffering heavy losses for the last many years. In such a situation the Petitioners, in our opinion, cannot legitimately claim that their pay scales should necessarily be revised and enhanced eve....